My opinion of Canada just dropped a few points.
French law permits such things as prosecution of libel of dead people which English law does not. There is really no concept like free expression in the English law sense (and most certainly not in the US constitutional sense).
I doubt this case would have played out the same way in any other province. No other province operates enforcement units to trap businesses using English in order to fine them for not using French or having French words smaller than English ones. (for a recap of that nonsense, start with http://world.time.com/2013/04/08/quebecs-war-on-english-lang...)
Canada has country wide libel laws that this might fall under and as alricb explained this could have happen any where in the country.
"No other province operates enforcement units to trap businesses using English in order to fine them for not using French or having French words smaller than English ones. (for a recap of that nonsense, start with http://world.time.com/2013/04/08/quebecs-war-on-english-lang...
Quebec language laws have nothing to do with this case. I fail to see what you point is by bringing them up. Also the language law while draconian and often ridiculous have to be understood in context of when they were created. I'm not a fan of them but I wouldn't use that as an example of Quebec being anti free speech.
That's because you don't know much about Canadian law. Pawluck was found guilty of Criminal Harassment, which is the same offence ad mare usque ad mare, ou d'une mare à l'autre, as we say over here. Criminal Code, section 264.
I'm wondering if someone could help us out a bit.